Who are your role models?

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's a pretty good reason to admire him as a role model.

There are probably much better choices, but a psychologist or a student of the mind would find Leary more appealing...just the same as Walter Peyton is a role model of mine due to my interest in football...but there's probably better athletes that were good role models to kids.

Honestly, I think you're being trolled.

Ever.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Impossible. Iconiac has never been known to troll.

[b]Ever. [/B]

My ol' buddy Omega 😉

Originally posted by inimalist
it probably depends on what you mean by better, but I dont know another scientist who has been called the most dangerous man in America.

Julian Assange might be close, but he isn't a scientist... Galelaio I suppose, but those circumstances seem different to me

I would think that Wundt or Freud would be better psychology "role models" than Leary for at least their pioneering work. I know Freud was ****ing insane with some ideas, but he can still be admired for at least being a major figure. But, come one..."Penis Envy". 😆

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would think that Wundt or Freud would be better psychology "role models" than Leary for at least their pioneering work. I know Freud was ****ing insane with some ideas, but he can still be admired for at least being a major figure. But, come one..."Penis Envy". 😆

Wundt is cool, but not a lot of what he did is really relevant to what I do or how I think about psych (as is most stuff prior to the cognitive revolution actually... Someone like Golgi, who was staining neurons, might even be a better choice, though he was a physiologist, his approach to the mind, afaik, was way more in line with mine than that of early psychologists). Fechner, in terms of "fathers of psychology" is more a role model, given his interest in perception and, ****, he invented psychophysics, something that even informs the way I now look at the motor system. Or Helmholtz for his early stuff on the electrical properties of Neurons.

Freud I don't like at all, like, period. I don't think his impact has been positive, in fact, I think he has done more to confound how we understand individuals than most anyone else in psych's history. No, it isn't his fault that he became as famous as he did, or that his "id, ego, superego" stuff became so ingrained in society, but honestly, I don't have much love for the man. I like Anna Freud more than her father by a long shot.

Actually, thinking about it, I really don't like that early-mid 1900s European approach at all. I'm way more into someone like Pavlov, Watson or Skinner (though they are a bit later, and Pavlov was Russian...). I'm not trying to pit one versus the other, as neither are perfect, but American psychology has always seemed more interested in biology and humans as acting systems rather than humans as these complex emotional conscious beings, but then, I don't do anything clinical 😛

Chomsky, for his response to Skinner and his role in the Cognitive revolution, Fisher and Cohen for their stats, Fisher especially for his approach to data and how to determine probabilities. Lakatos for similar reasons. Hell, if I'm just name dropping at this point, add Broca, Goodayle and Gazannaga, for their research on people with neurological injuries and how they were able to piece together how the brain worked from that. Triesman and Wolfe specifically for their perception work, Watson and Humphreys similarly, though to a lesser degree.

Probably the single most influential person in terms of my philosophy on psychology and such is a guy by the name of Nairne, who talks about something called "functionalism", where we talk about human behaviour in terms of what function it serves to either the individual in their immediate context, their development, or through evolution. There have been types of functionalism throughout the history of psych, but generally I find Nairne's the best and most relevant.

When you meet people who study psychoanalysis and talk seriously about penis envy, it becomes less hilarious.

My role model is inimalist. kinda

oh, and about Leary:

Compared to Wundt and Freud, he is far more of a role model for me, even if we just consider the science of it. For one, his research into LSD had results. For instance, though the work was only ever pilot, LSD had an astronomically greater rate of success treating people with alcoholism. Not only that, the idea of using psychoactive substances in clinical settings saw results with MDMA, among other things. So even if we just stop there, we see he pioneered a method of using substances for clinical purposes, which, were cheap, relatively quick, effective and didn't end with a patient on a regiment of pills and in therapy for years. Ignoring everything else, that seems like a reason to look up to him, and if you compare his approach to therapy to someone like Freud, Freud looks like a joke, even though he is more famous.

If we move that a step further, even ignoring that there is any controversy or whatever, the idea that psychoactive substances have a place in research is something that I am behind 100%. Not just as a subject of study, but as an actual tool of study (much like Leary wanted to use them as a tool of therapy). Brain injury and lesion have provided a huge chunk of what we know about how the brain works, and drugs generally give researchers the ability to produce controlled and impermanent lesions into a person, to observe the behavioural results. This is essentially what TMS does, only the potential with drugs is that you could design things that are incredibly specifically targeted to certain neurotransmitters, rather than local populations of neurons.

The reason we think Broca is amazing but Leary is a criminal is the political side to his research. I've had plenty of discussions with profs about the use of drugs for potential artificial lesions, and I've had 100% agreement, with the caveat that nobody thinks it would be do-able because the government wouldn't allow it...

Originally posted by lord xyz
My role model is inimalist. kinda

I'm like Charles Barkley though

It's hard for me to relegate Freud to being detrimental to modern psychology. I just don't see that as plausible/sustainable in any sort of intelligent dialogue concerning modern psychology. IMO, that's worse than saying Einstein set back physics decades with his incorrect ideas (he had many). Is it not more important to get people thinking than it is to force people to fall in line?

If you're referring to Freud's influence on laymen, sure: he may have set back the laymen decades.

I still think Wundt would be a good role-model for a psychology student. Not necessarily what he was wrong about, but how much of a pioneer he was and the lasting good his work created for psychology. Wundt is just an amazing intellect with knowledge and academic work spanning multiple subjects. It's hard to dislike him for anything except not making up his mind. I read that he was a strict but very likeable professor.

Can't say there's many I can name off the top of my head at the moment....Professor Brian Cox is one...Not because the work he is doing is physics is particularly significant but because his broadcasting work shines a positive light on science and his demeanor and passion for what he does always comes through and he seems like a genuinely interesting and likeable guy.

Watch his 2 main BBC documentaries "Wonders of the Solar System" and "Wonders of the Universe" to see what I mean.

Originally posted by theICONiac
hoover

Timothy Leary is known for his advocacy of psychedelic drugs in treatment of mental disorders. He is also known for his use of said drugs.

It was just a question.

father knows best

Batman
King Arthur
Marc Antony
Titus Pullo
Lucius Vorenus.

I'm somewhat detached from reality, and thus don't really find inspiration from other people.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's hard for me to relegate Freud to being detrimental to modern psychology. I just don't see that as plausible/sustainable in any sort of intelligent dialogue concerning modern psychology. IMO, that's worse than saying Einstein set back physics decades with his incorrect ideas (he had many). Is it not more important to get people thinking than it is to force people to fall in line?

If you're referring to Freud's influence on laymen, sure: he may have set back the laymen decades.

I still think Wundt would be a good role-model for a psychology student. Not necessarily what he was wrong about, but how much of a pioneer he was and the lasting good his work created for psychology. Wundt is just an amazing intellect with knowledge and academic work spanning multiple subjects. It's hard to dislike him for anything except not making up his mind. I read that he was a strict but very likeable professor.

I'm not saying Wundt wouldn't be a good role model, I'm saying he isn't on of mine

and regarding Freud, well, I just disagree and I think you are confusing the popularity and hype around Freud as a personality with anything he might have done significant for science, and without a doubt, Freud's ideas about the mind and individuals still are preeminent in our society, doing a huge degree of damage to how people understand psych

I was at a dinner for the grad students in my department, and I asked them what they thought of Freud. Of the 6 I asked, 5 said, point blank, he was a joke. The sixth only said he deserved respect as a popularizer of science in his time, but scientifically was a joke. Freud wasn't even really ahead of his time compared to his contemporaries. Don't take this personally, but imho, saying you respect Freud as a psychologist is like saying you like Dr. Phil as a therapist. Sure, more people know who he is than, say, someone who does real and worthwhile science, but how is that a good thing when that popularity corrupts people's understanding of human behaviour?

[and I'm not just focusing on the layman. It set ALL psych back decades, we have just been able to drop 99% of what he said, whereas the public has yet to. There is no redeeming theoretical quality to Freud's work, and even people of his time knew this (Jung for instance)]

the personality which should be role model for you must have some very special and impressive qualities i am really impressed by
Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah
________

I was never a fan of Freud, or of psychoanalytical systems in general, but he did make some good, broad points (and a few surprisingly specific ones). Mostly, I think Freud is regarded as one of those thinkers who gave a jab-cross-hook to humanity's pride, ie, showed us that we're not all-that. Copernicus took us out of the center of the universe; Darwin connected us to all subhuman life; and Freud reminded us that we're not as rational as we like to think.

by being entirely irrational himself?

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but like, when you even look at the people who were Freud's students at one point (I'm thinking Adler specifically), they had a far superior grasp of human behaviour than Freud did, and in the end, were much more impactful in terms of the science of psychology.

Like, to see Freud placed on a pedestal with Copernicus and Darwin honestly makes me feel like the hugest failure in the world. No matter how interesting and amazing the work that has been done in the past 80 years is, psychologists have been pathetically unable to galvanize the public like Freud did... That is something that really needs to be changed...

For instance, both Darwin and Copernicus are loved because, well, they had theories that worked. Freud's theories were, at best, arm chair pop-psychology, and when put into practice, hugely detrimental. There is the case of the woman who had unnecessary and botched facial surgery as treatment for menstrual cramps because of Freud's theories, and his adamant recommendation that people use cocaine lead to the death of one of his good friends... He was so anti-science that he declared that anyone who even questioned his methods of psychoanalysis were no longer allowed to study with him and must be shunned by his group.

Like, I don't mean this personally to anyone, but if you honestly think Freud is an important name in psychology you have to read more psych... Even read more psych from the late 1800 early 1900, compare it to what Freud was thinking, it is utter nonsense, and everyone knew it was nonsense, except for the public who love a controversial figure

EDIT: Freud is to psychology what Lamarck is to evolution or Brahe to cosmology...

I actually didn't think Freud was accepted even in mainstream culture anymore. Nearly all of his work has been debunked ad nauseum, and I've never even been remotely close to psychology as my field of study.

Probably I'm wrong. I'm always finding surprising things that people still believe. I almost did a spit-take when an ex told me she believed in Ouija boards.

It's actually one of my only criticisms of Joseph Campbell's approach to mythology and religion. He's probably the person whose worldview I model my own around most closely, yet he tried to tie myths into accepted psychological teachings of the time. Where he tries to relate myths to, say, Freud and Jung is where his work is most dated.

He has much more ardent supporters on this forum than I have seen in academia

One person in my lab, who has a neuroscience (BSc) undergrad degree has no idea what Freud thought or believed, which speaks volumes about his role in modern psychology and behavioural science. I learned more about Freud in Sociology classes than psychology ones...

There's a lot to be said about the Hero's Journey, in popular culture if nothing else, and I will always love how he manages to unify so much of religion and myth under common themes and banners. Strips religion of any literal import, while retaining the power of the stories and practical lessons that can be contained in them. I think a lot of that is fairly universal, and only gets attacked by those who believe in the literal veracity of the myths he's deconstructing.

He's also just a marvelous storyteller. I use his metaphors and paraphrase him a lot when having religious discussions. Or hell, even non-religious. I once borrowed a series of images and analogies from him concerning the splitting of light into the spectrum by a prism, to talk about esoteric (non-religious) orders like fraternities and freemasons, and their symbols, rituals, and the like.

But I'm also very able to say where I disagree. The early psuedo-psychological sections of Hero With a Thousand Faces still make me cringe. And occasionally he's too general about the stages of myth, using labels and themes broad enough to fit in numerous myths, but being so broad as to lose their meaning. I agree with the approach of his universalization, just not always the execution.

Originally posted by inimalist
by being entirely irrational himself?

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but like, when you even look at the people who were Freud's students at one point (I'm thinking Adler specifically), they had a far superior grasp of human behaviour than Freud did, and in the end, were much more impactful in terms of the science of psychology.

Like, to see Freud placed on a pedestal with Copernicus and Darwin honestly makes me feel like the hugest failure in the world. No matter how interesting and amazing the work that has been done in the past 80 years is, psychologists have been pathetically unable to galvanize the public like Freud did... That is something that really needs to be changed...

For instance, both Darwin and Copernicus are loved because, well, they had theories that worked. Freud's theories were, at best, arm chair pop-psychology, and when put into practice, hugely detrimental. There is the case of the woman who had unnecessary and botched facial surgery as treatment for menstrual cramps because of Freud's theories, and his adamant recommendation that people use cocaine lead to the death of one of his good friends... He was so anti-science that he declared that anyone who even questioned his methods of psychoanalysis were no longer allowed to study with him and must be shunned by his group.

Like, I don't mean this personally to anyone, but if you honestly think Freud is an important name in psychology you have to read more psych... Even read more psych from the late 1800 early 1900, compare it to what Freud was thinking, it is utter nonsense, and everyone knew it was nonsense, except for the public who love a controversial figure

EDIT: Freud is to psychology what Lamarck is to evolution or Brahe to cosmology...

Originally posted by Martian_mind
Batman
King Arthur
Marc Antony
Titus Pullo
Lucius Vorenus.

I'm somewhat detached from reality, and thus don't really find inspiration from other people.

🙂 Real life tends to be rather mundane. Hence our mutual fondness for comic books?